mothballs -- in mothballs is it is not free, it is extensive, and it takes a long time to get them back on and it is probably better to build new ships that have the newest technology, the most capable, and can meet emerging threats. one of the things i wanted to talk about is we have 283 ships in the battle fleet today to on nine/11, we had 316 ships in the navy, and by 2008, that was down to 278. during one of the great military billets in american history, the u.s. navy debt significantly smaller, and to have the defense strategy we have today, we need a larger fleet. i am happy to say that we have stabilized the fleet and we are growing the fleet. we are going to get to 300 ships before the end of this decade, so we can meet every mission that the country gives us.

in 2008, we put 30 ships under contract. that was not enough to keep the fleet from declining and was not enough to keep workers working in our shipyards. >> this is what they need to be prepared for, uncertainty. it is what ever comes over the horizon. the the news is that people join the navy and marines.

there are willing to make those voyages. that is the kind of character that serves in our military. if you have asked that question a year before the wall came , you would have gotten a very different answer than you would have gotten a couple months later. yet the same question before 9/11 you would have gotten a different answer. commanders and strike groups before they go out. the only thing that is uncertaicertain is uncertainty.

they have to be prepared for its. blacks we want to thank the staff at the u.s. naval a county. where i did take the lead to a hearing that began within the last committee.

u.s. the commander of the pacific command. he is talking about u.s. responsibilities and homelandsss in the and the developing story in north korea. live coverage here on c-span. >> we have plans that we work together. we continue to revise them. fromis basically a branch our normal day to day. it is what we see from not only does leader but his father as well and how best to deal with that. and will not go into the details here. i do not think that is appropriate.

good planningis a efforts. theas provided us opportunity to show the right .oordination is in place that we do this in a predictable way that allows us to manage as provocations with out unnecessary escalation that none of us want. i am supportive of the plan. i think it is a good one. >> are you satisfied that we would be ready? >> i am satisfied that we are ready today. >> can you give us the impact of sequestration on the pacific command? >> there is no doubt that

sequestration is having an impact on operational readiness. by the nature that it is put in the budget, particularly this year, there are only so many places where we can pay that size of a bill. most of those are an operational accounts. i would say that for us to be able to deal with that is .rioritized our assets globally today i think we have managed that. for today.t what happens in the near in midterm.

you are saying things like we are cancelling large scale exercises that we have done to ensure the future readiness of our course. to prioritize these things. this is what is happening on the peninsula in north korea. >> thank you. to get like clarification on one statement that i think was misrepresents ied. it indicated that the biggest long-term security threats in the pacific region is climate change.

i would like to have you clarify a by what he met with that. i like to follow up with a couple of things. >> i am happy to have the opportunity to clarify. >> and let the people you're trying to use your statements are the very people who think we're spending too much money on defense and that the money should be spent in other areas. >> as you might expect, i give 100 percent interviews over the last year. during those interviews i can assure the committee that i start by taking the most military threats we have, all the things that he laid out in

his opening remarks quite well. and this particular case i do the same. thetarted to talk about long term and what are the implications of it. perspectiveify my this way. go from bought 7 billion people in the world still nine or 10 by this century. live off the coast. that is increasing as people moved toward the economic centers. if you go and as the numbers of

how many people died due to was aboutsasters 280,000 people. they were not all weather- related but a lot of them were. ofre was about $500 billion lost productivity. when i think about our planning and what i have to do with allies and partners and i look long term, it is important that the countries in this region build capabilities into their infrastructure to be able to deal with these types of things. >> you have used up half my time. we did not get around to it. is it safe to say that in the event that this climate was changing, the boston globe made that statement. it is one of the top scientists

in the country. said it was laughable. s so we can be totally independent in terms of providing our own energy if we develop our own resources. i believe that to be true. more securebe a world if we were totally independent and able to supply our allies in europe jurisdiction with energy so they do not have to depend on other sources? >> absolutely. >> let me say something about china. they are talking at increasing their defense budget by 10.7%

in 2013. i remember in the 1990's when they increase their defense spending by 300% at the same time we reduced hours by about 30%. this is after the cold war. 11 people thought we could afford to reduce its. we did. we went down 30%. now we are facing the same thing. could it be that we will cease to become the partner of choice to our allies of this trend continues? does this concern you with the amount of increase that china is making? we have seen this in africa. , ity time we have any type moves in. they seem to have the resources to do something.

>> it is concerning. ensure wespects is to have the right mixture for the asia-pacific so we can reassure our allies and our partners and the american people that our interests are protected over there. i think we do have to watch very carefully how the chinese military rises, what they do with the military and how the military is integrated into the environment. >> we were looking at the controversial hanger and beef that he made a statement that maybe should be hardened. agree with your statement. with the resources that we have, i would think that others would say these need to be hard in also. would you address that issue in

terms of the scarce resources and the advantages of pardoning those facilities? suit are aware of the against of the resources. it boils down to resiliency. it is a significant strategic hub for us and any scenario that i would see in the asia-pacific for the next number of decades. when you look at resiliency, there are a number of components. is offensive and methods to protect it. then there are things he might do to harden. then there is command and control. we are looking across all of

those. it lets you as quickly as possible recovered glom if it if itere to be -- guam were ever to be attacked by someone. >> give us some ideas on priorities. i know it is not of a lot of interest. it was during our trip over there. it might also be true on this. taking the 9000 marines, going australia. some to there is an issue there in terms of the real-estate that would free up for the japanese.

is there a brief comment youomic about that move -- can make about that move in terms of where the remaining marines would be and how that affects the value of the real- estate there? use in more detail on that. generally when you look at fuel supplies and how you could regenerate those and whether the fuel heads when need to be hardened or not is when we look at whether you have the right runway by someone who decided to guam.ack

we're also looking at dispersal of assets so the assets might go to different places and times of crisis. we're looking at a broad spectrum. these are things that fit together. >> thank you so much. >> thank you four years service. service.ur you described a growing number of nations adopting the submarine enhance weapons sy the russians attacked with ballistic missiles. india is drawing submarine force. the chinese seem to be the ones who are expanding the most. this seems to be the class of

weapons systems that are actively trying to compete with. is that a fair judgment? >> i do not say they are actively competing with the united states. globally, you have well over 300 submarines. did that number is growing. people recognize they have a suit against anti-access --- they have a significant anti- access accessibility and that technology is allowing very quiet submarines to be built. i do not know that they're competing with the united states. they are reemerging into the security environment in a way we should be very thoughtful about.

>> in terms of our fleet, no longer do we have an open field. we arnelle beginning -- are now beginning to note an increase in submarines deployed by asian powers. we have the very best submarines in the world. i am not concerned about the capabilities of our submarines or the crews that operate them. i am concerned that numbers matter. were you have them matter. -- where you have them matter. there are places in the world where an asymmetric advantage from undersea warfare is important. >> it seems to be important now based on your comments, is this

doctor and what you're proceeding to be the major emphasis, particularly the major powers like china wanting to be able to deny access to our fleet? trend aroundneral the globe, that people want to be able to control what happens in their economic zones. then there are powers to like to project power beyond those areas. submarines provide them viable alternative is for doing that in a way that is sometimes asymmetric. >> shifting gears slightly, the ship freedom has been deployed to singapore. we are going to have issues with and theto budgets capability of different ships. do you intend to monitor the

operation of the freedom? how will you deploy it? >> the freedom is the first class of combat ship. it is a concept ship. we started to build it and then rolled the research and development into it. decided to push it to protest a deploy it out of singapore. it is a ship designed for operations. it has the ability to be reconfigured as mission module packages. what it does for me, it provides a visible presence of u.s. it allows us to cooperate and participate with a key strategic partner out there.

pacificdes my commander another tool in the tool kit to be able to deal with peace time events as well as those of crisis. i am anxious to get out and see what it can actually do. have our conscious plan to evaluate the capabilities to make recommendations with respect to the design and function? >> we do. freedom will be there for about 10 months. mying that time understanding is that we will concentrate on how we move the mission module packages around. how do we integrate them into the operational fleet? it is a good thing. a gets it into the real world.

he gets you seeing how they can best perform and best be used. >> when you are doing or planning for a range of operations from non-combatant evacuation of the way up to a main fight or a forced landing, will you think in terms of where the combat ship it in those missions and what missions is may or may not be adequate? >> my other components are looking very carefully at what they can use because of its reach into durable -- able abilities. we'll also be looking at an integral part of the navy strategy for the next

generation countermeasures. we will ensure that those technologies are looked at as carefully as we can. comment about the amphibious capabilities you have in the pacific now? frequency of amphibious operations from ship to shore have been curtailed at the time. do youe the problems see? >> one of the initial impact was to see the marine forces that many of them had been deployed into afghanistan or the middle east over the last decade and return to the pacific. extensived conversations about how we reintegrate them back into the

amphibious ships we have there. one of the missions we need to pursue. we have a good plan. this has been positively received. >> thank you. >> @ thank you for being here. on mentioned the effects sequestration that you're making certain adjustments. are you going to be able to adjust adequately and carry out your assigned missions in the medium and long term is

sequestration continues on the path it is on the da? toi would say we will have closely assess globally the types of things that our military is being asked to do. most pacifiche command? >> it depends on how the resources were prioritized and balance. at the end of sequestration we will still have the most powerful military in the world. todepends on how we're going be prioritized with it. it will be a challenge. >> my question is not whether we will have the most powerful military. will you be able to carry out the assigned missions that the pacific command has now in a sufficient manner to ensure our national security of

sequestration continues the packets on -- path it is on? >> i hate to give you this. >> you know what the numbers are. you know those numbers in some way of going to have to be put into effect. my question is will you be able to ensure the american people you will carry out your assigned security requirement to defend this nation and sequestration continues on the path it is on? >> it depends on how the resources are prioritize. >> sequestration is ok as long as they prioritize in the proper fashion. is that the answer? >> i have been consistent in saying sequestration would have a catastrophic

effect. sequestration is something i would be supportive of in general. it seems to be heading in that direction. they are looking at what the strategic choices are that have to be made. the choice is that we are not going to be able to provide the force levels we have today. the answer is, i cannot do it. they will read prioritize it. re-prioritize its. >> thank you. i do not know of a time of greater attention since the end of the korean war that exists today between north korea, south korea, and us. would you agree?

>> i would agree that in my recollection i do not know a greater time. theo you believe we have ability to intercept a missile and if the north koreans launched a missile as is widely reported they would do in coming days? >> we have the ability to defend our homeland, hawaii, guam, forces and allies. >> do you have the capability to intercept a missile if the north koreans launched within the next several days? >> we do. >> would you recommend such actions? >> if the missile was in defense of the homeland i would certainly recommend that action.

if it was in defense of our allies i would recommend. >> would you recommend that we intercept a missile if it is launched by north korea no matter where the intended target is? >> i would not recommend that. >> and so you're sure what the target is. thentil you're sure what target is. >> we will be able to understand pretty quickly where any launch from anywhere in the world, where it would be going and what we need to do about it. i am confident that we'll be able to make that decision for defense of our allies and our homeland. >> in the event of a missile launch you'd wait until you could determine where the missile was ames. aimed. predetermined,ny

we should have a sense of where it will be aimed. if we do not, it will not take isg to figure out where its going. >> we have seen china make some cautionary remarks about north korea. building inify a rising from which cyber attacks and minutes. we see continued confrontational behavior on the part of china as part of its assertion of sovereignty over the south china sea. to would you agree with me bets the only -- would you agree with me that the only restraining force at this time is the chinese? >> i would say they will play a key part in any restraint. i do not know if they are the

only one. >> do you think they have played a sufficient role of restraint of north korea/ ? >> i think they could do more. >> are you concerned about this combination of factors about chinese behavior, that they are not beating as a world -- behaving as a world power should be a of in light of the military buildup? some concerns. >> how serious are those concerns? as the chinese military that the balls, which i mean it will and igh, -- evolves, think it will evolve, the

question is about transparency and what they are going to do to the military and how they integrate the military to the rest of the security environment. it does concern me. they know my concerns. i have a voice to them. we continue to have dialogue. >> do you have adequate defense missile resources to defend the homeland? >> the secretary of defense has announced some additional missiles. we have a capacity and a limited capacity to defend against the type of storage we're seeing from north korea. >> is it true this concern about north korea is exacerbated by the fact that artillery could strike seoul and caused

horrendous casualties? >> is very much exacerbated by that. that amount of artillery would put seoul at risk. it is a primary concern of u.s. mine., korea, and >> the governor of japan announced for movements that is our even mentions. awaiting a master plan for the movement and the cost required including environmental impact assessments.

when do you think they would receive the master plan? >> and not have a date for when they would present that to you. i have been provided information to them as required. i responded to the committee on a number of issues you have asked me about including the list requirements. thank you. >> signature bluemound ball. blumenthal. >> thank you for being here and for your excellent testimony. i am concerned as much about the threat that north korea poses in terms of nuclear proliferation over the long term as the immediate attention and potential threats in the short term.

in have briefly discussed it your testimony and we have barely discussed at all here today. i wonder if you could elaborate on your testimony to describe what you see as the extent of aid that north korea is providing to other nuclear farming countries such as iran asarming countries such iran. what can we do to bolster? >> of north korea's proliferation of weapons systems very much concerns me. we know that over the time that north korea it goes through

cycles a provocation one of the things they rely on to fund their ability to do what they do is through proliferation and around therme sales world. i do not have any direct knowledge that there has been a collision between iran and north korea but it does not mean has not happened. >> does it mean iran would be greatly disadvantaged of north korea were not helping them? >> iran would be greatly advantaged if north korea help to them. >> is that help on going? ini cannot give it to you that form. >> perhaps in another. what can we do to stop the proliferation? the international community

is going to bring continued pressure. we have to tighten our ability to see what is being proliferated and where it is going. we have to ensure that we have the ability to interdicted before it is proliferated. know you're focused on this problem. some of the most chilling testimony this year before our committee came from the admiral who told us, remember the truly dark edge of the spectrum is weapons of mass destruction and the proliferation of these weapons. he said the ability to move 10 tons of cocaine in the mini-sub , begin also made a nuclear device.

already the means of thatferating nuclear arms do beyond what we have seen so my area of responsibility are the highways for a lot of activities. some unrealized the size of the pacific ocean. you say the sheer physical extent of your challenge. i didn't mean to cut you off. briefed oncan be re- the threat of proliferation, particularly as it concerns iran going forward.

objea subjects.a there are 300 submarines out there now. compare to the united states in terms of their technological capability or the ability of the personnel who them. don't we need to keep pace with what is happening in the rest of the world? >> that has been my recommendation. >> nothing has happened to change that recommendation. >> nothing has happened to change that recommendation. >> arguably, the urgency of the recommendation is all the more present now with the increasing

submarines by countries around the world. >> it is not only about the submarines. our submarine force as a lot of other things from intelligence and reconnaissance to special operations support. it is a wide array of things that need to be addressed that can be addressed very well by a competent submarine force that has the capability and capacity to be able to address the challenges we see. >> you mention very briefly the challenges posed by human trafficking. i wonder if you can elaborate on that.

>> i have a slide that someone gave me the other day. it said that the slave trade in the world today is about $30 billion a year. my guessticular aor, is that there is a fair amount of that trafficking coming from that part of the world. we do look at this. we try to work with our partners and allies to look at where the sources might come from. what are the security mechanisms they may have in place? it is a problem. it is a much larger problem than we want to think about. north't the republic of korea a primary control research to this problem? >> i do not have knowledge of that. >> my knowledge is that they are

to human trafficking but within that country in the united states. are you aware of information that would cooperate that? >> i am not aware of it but i will look into your numbers. i would not be surprised. >> i do not have numbers. if you have them out is certainly welcome them. my time has expired. i want to thank you for your very helpful testimony today. thank you for your leadership and for all the serb underneath you. what is the relationship between china and north. ? how is autria it depends upon how is no. 3 depend upon china -- no. 3 it depends

upon china? \ >> they're on their border. they share a common border. supports the north korea through food and fuel and water there are diplomatic ties between north korea that are much more robust than what we may have ever experienced. i think their influence can be significant. >> as i understand it, china is north korea's biggest trading partner, at their main source of food and fuel. it seems to me that north korea would have a difficult time continuing economically even at their lower economic development pace as they are now giving the

start in that many of the north koreans experience if they did not have china support. would you agree with me? >> i would have to agree with that. the north korean economy is about 2% of the south korean economy. >> if you look at what is happened in the last couple of weeks with the new leader of north korea with his actions that seem to go beyond their cycle a provocation that we have seen in the past with his father. could it china play a key role in getting north korea to stop their actions? i would think that china could play a key role in influencing the rhetoric and restoring some more sense of calm to the peninsula.

i believe sometimes the chinese are more nuanced than we are. i believe there has been some reporting an indication that the leadership in china has made some statements about the issue. i cannot tell you what is going on behind the scenes. >> one thing that troubled me is that when you were asked about your conversations with your chinese counterpart, you said in these past few weeks that you have not had contacts with your military counterparts. it seems to me that we need to be clearer with china as to what our expectations are. this is a danger to them. if there is a provocation and we are required to engage, that is

to the detriment of china poses security as well. i am wondering why you have not had this conversations. i believe our secretary of defense handles those conversations. the nature of our milton l. -- mill to mill which china is progressing. over time we will progress to a state where the pay, commander can talk to the chief of defencse in real time. we're not there yet. i would have to refer you to the state department. i know there is a different flow of information at the diplomatic level because of the where the pla is structured. >> do you know what commerce

conversations chuck hagel has had with his counterpart in china? >> i do not know the specifics. there has been out reach at that level. >> i think that is particularly important given that north korea relies on china for its economic existence. with the thought of stopping the proposed minute man test we had, you said you agree to that decision. was there any thought to the fact that if we stopped a proposed test that we're planning on doing anyway that north korea might interpret that as their actions having an impact on us backing off? were getting us to stop actions with our own icbm

testing. what was the thought process there? that entered into the discussions about when the decision was made. we have many tools available that demonstrate u.s. power and resolve and that we use those selectively to make sure we do not end up with a situation that spirals out of control on the korean peninsula. there is no question we have the capability to demonstrate at will when we want to send our own people to defend the peninsula. i was supportive of the decision. >> at some point we will have to go forward with our regular testing. >> absolutely. >> can i ask about the 14 ground state interceptors that are being replaced?

the prior registration had planned to put those in place in alaska to make sure we had the missile defense capability that was needed. how long will it take for that to be put in place? >> i do not have an answer. i can get you one. >> is that a matter of years to get those in place? >> i would assume that it is longer than days. in not going forward in 2009 has delayed the capacity we believe we need. i do not have a comment on that. >> i wanted to ask the about the importance of the virginia class submarine. i know the senator had asked

about the need to continue the current bill debt. >> as we look at sequestration they are going to look at this. we have to look at all options and things that are out there and see what is affordable and within the context of what the american people want to provide. merits stand on its own as far as what we expect our submarine force to do in a sequestered budget. >> is there any doubt that we need that submarine availability in what is happening in the asia-pacific region?

>> there is no doubt the we need the virginia class submarine. we needed to employ a wide range of capabilities. they are all important. theve to look at what are capabilities that are most important. >> i appreciated. thank you for your testimony. thank you for your service. :) what areas are under threat? >> there has been a movement to the east coast. a moose and don has a range of about 40000 range of

or so miles. you can if shabbily that out. it is not put the mainland of the united states at risk. it is not put hawaii at risk. got the capability in place to be able to monitor and protect the homeland, guam, and our forces that are there as well as our allies. >> how quickly are you aware if a launch occurs? >> this is complicated. in the past we had significant inw in indications to be able to understand the direction of the launch where it was at. this creates a problem for our intelligence.

this is not just a north korean problem. this is a global issue. it put pressure on on our ability to understand what is going on and to see it and be able to respond to it. wem a military perspective would like to be able to deal with it before it ever launches. in this case, we're probably looking at being able to see it being in a general location and then 2 cents a launch to do what is necessary. at what point do you have to lot to protect our allies and their own territories? speculation. it would depend on the location of the launch, and the geometry of where it was going, and with the assets were located.

we will position our forces to optimize our capabilities. >> do you feel confident we will be able to protect all of our territories and friends/ >> i feel confident. in regards to the decision whatg in north korea, differences do you see from his father to him? >> perce the similarities. he has taken the playbook .robably from his military he has played that part to the people of north korea. he has indicated he will do economic reform which we have not seen anything but. recognition of a cycle of provocation where they go through an event.

there is a bellicose rhetoric and it builds. then they go into some dialogue. he asks for concessions. then it hangs out there for a while and then it starts back up again. over time, i believe the cycle of provocation has been a fairly successful strategy for them. they are still in power. where they differ is he is unpredictable, more unpredictable. his father and his grandfather always figured into their provocation cycle an off ramp of how to get out of it. it is not clear to me that he has brought -- thought through how to get out of it. that is what makes this scenario particularly challenging. >> is there a tipping point for the chinese?

where they will speak to the generals of north weea and say this is a point do not want me to go pass? do they have that kind of influence? >> i think they do. there would be a time where you would see more of that probably visible than you might have seen a. similar interests with the chinese. we want peace and security on the peninsula. there is no benefit to the chinese of having this type of activity occurring on their borders, no possible but that i can see from this. this problem to their national interest just like we do. >> they have the physical

ability to do it. do they have the will or desire if the north koreans go past a point we would have expected them to go past? do the chinese have an ability to force a change in the leadership there? >> i do not know that they would say they have the ability to force a change. my sense is that they will look after their national interests. at some point time if north korea is not in the best interests, and they will act to serve their national interest as we would. >> outside of the korean peninsula, what do you see as the biggest challenge in your region? what is the situation that concerns you the most? certainly as we look at the

rise of regional powers, the is looking to it a future where the u.s. interests are protected and our allies are protected in age specific. we have to expect that china will integrate into the security environment. they have to. there's not another good option. china assume ato that is role, consistent with u.s. interests there. the concern is how we get there.

>> do you see that as getting worse or is that situation getting worked out better? how do you see that moving forward? >> well, you know in the south china sea, the philippine government filed a international tribunal which i thought -- i was supportive of that when they did that. i believe that first, we don't take sides. that's our u.s. policy on territorial disputes, but we do or have an opinion and the opinion is is that they should be resolved using normal standards of international rule that they should be done peacefully without coercion and that in the end, it should be in the best interest of all the

partners in that region. so in the south china sea, i think we have -- we are at -- i would say kind of a low boil is the best way i would put it, is that we're watching carefully what happens as each of these peripheral country look at how they're going to secure their interest. in the east china sea with this -- we're clear as well there. again, we don't take sides on territorial disputes, but we do recognize that it falls in the administrative boundary of japan and that falls under our alliance and our treaty responsibilities with them. and so we are hoping again, that over time, that this scenario can play out to the benefit of both japan and china. because they do have many, many

nterests together that i think over time may eclipse this event but they have to get through it and hopefully, that's done peacefully. >> admiral, thank you for your service thank you for your testimony today. >> we have had 232 ships left in the navy. a decade from now, is that a wise thing? >> not a wise thing. >> would it severely restrict our ability to deal with threats that we face today in your backyard. do you agree with that? >> unless you put them in my a.o.r., i would probably be ok if you put them all there. >> but somebody else wouldn't be. >> but somebody else wouldn't be. >> fair enough. >> yes, sir. >> now, what percentage of north korea's g.d.p. is dependent on

our relationship with china? >> i don't have that in my fingertips, but i imagine a fair percentage and i can give you a number. >> ok. i would appreciate that. the point i'm trying to make is that basically north korea's a client state of china and they could stop this if they chose to in my view. we're ready for the fight with north korea, if that day ever comes? >> we're ready. >> south korean and japan, do they believe we have their back? >> in my sessions with my counterparts, the answer to that is yes. >> the politics in south korea has changed with the tolerance about the south korean government and people to accept any more attacks against south korean interest is lower than it was two years ago. do you agree with that? >> i would agree that the tolerant -- that their toleration of a significant

provocation towards the south is much lower than it has been in the past. >> if there were an incident where a south korean naval was south north korea, the korea citizens were killed or a plane was shut down by the north koreans, it would be impossible for the south koreans to respond in some fashion, do you agree with that? >> my sense is there is a growing sense in south korea that future provocation is at a level that you just described would require them to respond in some way. >> from our own national security interest, a nuclear armed north korea sharing technology with terrorist groups is a real concern. do you agree with that? >> one of the greatest concerns. >> and we should be concerned about a missile attack coming from north korea and i applaud

that administration for showing resolve. i think all the things that you have done under secretary hagel's direction has been good, the right signal to send, but it is more than just getting hit by north korean missile that i'm concerned about. north korea was an advanced nuclear weapons program was probably a nightmare for this country because they have shown a propensity to share the technology with terrorist groups. is that a fair statement? >> fair statement. >> did the north koreans have a rational bone in their body? -- do the north koreans have a rational bone in their body? >> i would say over time, in if you look at the time -- over time, they're still in power and so there must have been some rationality from their perspective of what they're

doing. >> and from their perspective, this is rationalist. you live like kings and most people are starving to death. you get to the bottom of the problem, you have to go back to china because this north korean regime could not last six months under the current construct without the support from china. do you agree with that? >> i believe that north korea is highly dependent on china for a lot of its resources. i don't know how long they would survive. >> not long. do you agree that china muff a plan for propping -- must have a plan for propping up this crazy regime? >> well, i don't know that -- >> they're not doing it by accident. they know who they're giving the must be to, -- money to, right? tell me the best you can, what is their plan? you're one of our eyes and ears in that part of the world. as briefly as possible, tell me why does china continue to do this? how does this fit into their plan for the planet?

> well, i would say that speculating on china's -- my perspective of my china's position on it is over the last -- >> have you ever asked them? >> we talked about it -- >> why do you support this crazy guy? why do y'all do this? i mean, what's in it for you? >> well, my sense is that over time, that they developed this relationship with north korea as a buffer to u.s. presence and south korea on the peninsula. >> don't you think it's deeper than that? that they worried about a unified korea, another democracy in their backyard? >> i don't know that i would agree that -- you would have to ask them. i don't know that they are worried about a democracy. they have a pretty vibrant relationship with south korea. >> so you think north korea is a buffer?

>> my sense is that they -- that -- -- again, that they may >> why did they engage in cyber attacks against american business? -- interests? >> they do that so that they can get the technological advantage. >> why did they object to efforts to control the slaughter in syria? >> i don't have a comment on that. >> why did they not support us more in terms of controlling the ayotollahs in iran? >> i couldn't comment. >> i'll give you a comment. i think this is a communist dictatorship that fears individual expression. they fear freedom of thought. they fear freedom of religion. they fear anything not controlled by the state. and it is now time to deal with

these people more directly. do you consider china a friend or a know? -- foe? >> i consider them at this point in time, in the terms of those two terms, neither. >> well, a friend's like this. do you agree, we don't need enemies? >> i consider them at this point in time, someone we have to develop a strategic partnership with to manage competition between two world powers. >> i'll be a little more direct. i know you're a military officer and i appreciate your service. their behaviors are not only provocative, it's obscene. they're stealing american intellectual property. they're attacking us every day. cyberspace. they're propping up one of the most dangerous regimes in the world that directly threaten our interests.

they're one of the groups having a sides back, one of the last real vicious people on the planet. not one of the last, but certainly one of the major. so you live in a tough neighborhood and i just wish you would share with the chinese that there's a growing frustration here in congress with the way they behave and we would like to have a more mature china as part of the international community, a china that would bring out the best in the world, not reinforce what's dangerous about it. i think i'm speaking for a lot of republicans and democrats. thank you for your service. >> thank you, senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome you for the hearing today. very important. thank you for your leadership and i want to thank the men and women who share with you. i visited with many of our leaders this past week and so i

know how hard they work. and the fact that they are very much a part of the community through volunteering and particularly with our schools. i have a question regarding pearl harbor naval shipyard. with a new strategy to rebalance our forces with the focus on the asia pacific, the need for strategically located maintenance facilities such as the pearl harbor naval shipyard appears more critical to the readiness of our fleet. one of our attack submarines was in dry dock and i saw the huge effort and the hundreds of people who have to work to maintain our submarines. so do you foresee any adjustments to the role that you see pearl harbor shipyard playing with this rebalancing as well as the importance of continuing the modernization efforts of the shipyard? we need to modernize that shipyard in order for them to work on these very, very highly

sophisticated submarines in order to support the fleet in the future. can you share your thoughts with s? >> yes, i know no plans to change the strategic -- with the pearl harbor naval shipyard. we have to have geographically capabilities. they have to be operationally resilient and they are to be return in crisis but they also have to be affordable. and so i assume that the changes we're going to make in the pearl harbor naval shipyard will continue to make it a competitive in nature but what they produce for us and from a military perspective from a pay come perspective is important and will continue to be important. >> i hope that means that you will continue to support the

efforts to modernize that shipyard so that they can conduct the kind of highly technical work that they do there. >> well, for them to remain operational resilient, they have to be able to do the type of work that i would need them to do. so if that requires them to modernize, then we'll need to do that. >> they do need to modernize. some of the equipments seems to be under intelligents. when we talk about the importance of the asia pacific area and the rebalancing to that area, i just participated in a tea ceremony with dr. sand and his group and their focus is peace through the way of the tea. and our relationship with japan is very important. can you talk about the current status of our alliance with japan which is a critical alliance in light of everything that's happening in the asia pacific area.

>> yes. it is a cornerstone alliance from the security perspective. our relationship with japan is equally important today as it ever has been in the past. it may be more important. the strength of our relationships and the strength of our military alliance and training together is as strong as it's ever been and it's getting better. their complaints bodes from a command and control perspective. their capabilities to participate in high end things like ballistic missile is growing. and i see a continued good way ahead with our relationship with japan. >> would you say that one of the areas that we need to continue the cus on is that situation in okinawa. >> yes. we've had recent good news where

the government of japan provided to the governor of oak noah. the landfill permit in there have a net under consideration. so that's the next step to go forward to be able to realize the replacement. >> i know this committee has numerous hearings on how we can ensure the movement of marines happens in a way that is of benefit to both of our countries, not to mention what e need to do regarding game. one of the areas that i focus my questioning with other leaders from the military is your need to reduce your energy consumption, which the department of defense is the largest user of energy of all of our departments. o regarding your

inimplementation strategy, i'm curious to know how this is progressing and what have been some of the successes of your implementation efforts? what have been the biggest challenges? nd your operational energy stengel ji efforts and any lessons learned from preliminarytation of the strategy being integrated into pay con's decision making? >> i would like to give you a more complete answer in writing. >> i welcome that. >> but to the larger perspective inside the d.o.d., pay come is the largest user of d.o.d. nergy resources. i have to think about how they're going to get refined to the quality that i need to put into airplanes and into ships. i have to think about how i'm

going to have to move around in this fast a.o.r. and i have to look at ensuring that the energy is going to be reliable when i get there when i need it. i also have to consider that i have locations throughout this vast area that many of the remote or more remote locations that will -- that might be available to look at alternative energy supplies. so it remains a critical aspect of the way we think through a strategy and we're following d.o.d. o.s.d.'s get lead on willing at renewable energy sources and we're familiar with many of them and there has been some success in that area. >> thank you. i think that's a very important strategy for us to pursue energy , listening to energy. very briefly, i know senator graham asked you some questions about china, vis-a-vis north korea and there's some indications that perhaps china

is not too happy, perhaps displeased with north korea's rhetoric and actions. do you foresee some action on the part of the chinese either publicly or behind the scenes to stop or at least reduce the level of provocations from north korea? >> well, i think there's been the ments by both ping and minister of foreign affairs in the last day or two that would indicate that they have some concerns about continued provocations or disruptions in this part of the world or anything that would put a potential negative situation on their -- on their border. so i think these are maybe not as direct as what we like to see here but i believe there are indications that the chinese government is engaging. i think i would have to refer

you to the state department to get more specifics on what the diplomatic channels are, but my sense is that they will consider their national interest just like we do and they will move to protect those national interests when time comes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator kane. >> welcome. i'm going to pick up on a theme. there's been a lot of questions about the relationship between china and north korea. i just would like to associate myself with comments made by others. i wouldn't have wanted to answer that question that you are posed by senator graham. is china a friend or a foe? it reminded me i was once in israel and asked the foreign minister the same thing between their relationship between russia and he said it's a friendship but it needs an awful lot of work. we have extensive ties with china commercially and many

multi-lateral venues obviously and the relationship is probably just about the most important relationship between two nations in the world. but when you list those items of controversy that senator graham mentioned, chinese position vis-a-vis syria, the completely flagrant cyber security attacks that can be testified to by any governmental agency or technology firm in this country will tell you about it occurring day after day after day, along with chinese government, you know, denials of the obvious reality. and then the situation in north korea. it is clear that while we have a friendship and an alliance and it's a very strategic one that's important for the world, it needs a lot of work right now. and i would associate with the comments of the senator. i think that the north korean nuclear program would come to a grinding halt as soon as china demands that it happens. they have the capacity to. they have the ability to they

have the leverage to. i think -- i think you're right that chinese interest seeing north korea is a buffer but an unsafe buffer isn't much important and some point other nations in the pacific region, south korea, japan, and others will start because of the logical ill logic of the nuclear proliferation will say we don't want nuclear weapons but if an unstable neighbor has them, then i guess we're going to get them too and it would be the worst thing for china to toews the prospect of an area with nuclear weapons. ultimately, that's what other nations will be compelled to do unless the north korean program stops. so this is a comment but it gives you a sense of what we're thinking here as you deal with your counterparts in paycom chinese counterparts and others. we feel like china can bring it to a stop. we feel like they have not chosen to do so.

the day is coming where they will need to do that or they will face other nations with weapons that they'll not be happy to have near their borders if they do not act in the role that they should. and i just having heard similar rounds of questioning and hearings before this one, from senator mccain and others who have asked is in question, this is the emerging consensus, i believe, of this body, this committee, many members of the committee about china's responsibilities, and where we be likely go. so i hope you will just take that for what it's worth category. a question then you asked a couple of things about sequester. i visited joint base langley used this last week in virginia and that is the home of the air force's air combat command, talked to the men and women who maintained f-22 release on the very day the u.s. had deployed to the air force base in south korea. and we've had a remarkable show of force, both f-22's and b-2's

to demonstrate that we're serious about the north korea threat but as we were doing that, i was being told air force plans to cut flying hours by 18% as a result of the sequester. air combat command informed us as of this week, it will enter what they call a tier ready status. one third of its flying units will cease flying or stand down for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. how will that cessation or tiered readiness of flying units affect your important and critical missions in paycom? >> well, as i indicated earlier, the -- back to the sequestration midterm in the near will be the degradation of readiness of our forces that would have to fall on. so what we've done in the near term is to ensure that we're

able to manage the scenarios that are most important to us, in my case, north korea manage that, manage our homeland defense but as the sequestration starts to move downstream, we start to see more and more negative impacts on the readiness of our force. so what it means to air combat command is that the forces that are back here that are going to be training to get ready to come and relieve the ones that are on station will not have adequate flying hours, will not have adequate training, potentially not have it, and that's kind of the world that we're in right now. >> ok. i think it is important. many of us were very pleased when we did the defense appropriations bill to carry forth year end to replace the c.r., but even with that, the notion that a third of our air combat units are standing down from now to year end is something that should cause us some significant anxiety. i know it worries me. you talk a little bit and there

were also some information in your testimony about the combined counterprovocation plan which is a south korea-led u.s. supported contingency plan for challenges in the region and i know that was just signed in the last couple of weeks. could you share a little bit more about that contingency plan and what are some of the strategies for dealing with contingencies, including miscalculations or threats over, you know, skirmishes or threats that escalate in what is that we obviously wish they wouldn't? >> well in all of our bilateral planning with our allies there which we've been doing for years with them and we continually evolve based on the scenarios we see in north korea. in this plan, it's just a follow on reiteration of our robust plan that we have. it's a look at the recognition that north korea has established a cycle of provocation and then

following the island of shelling a number of years ago is that how do we best ensure that as this cycle of provocation were to occur is how do we together as allies communicate? how do we understand the situation? how do we share snidges how do we posture ourselves to be able to ensure that we can manage those scenarios? i can't go into the details of it, but it's a good -- from my perspective, it's a very good effort. it's an indication of a maturing of the alliance and i'm very supportive of the efforts that general thurman and his counterpart in korea have undertaken. >> thank you. finally, your testimony discusses the continued challenge faced by the region because of typhoons, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis. what is paycom doing to plan humanitarian assistance and disaster response with other nations and multi-lateral

agencies and n.g.o.'s? >> well, certainly, the military aspects of hadr, that's not why you have militaries. you have them to do other things, but they certainly can provide assistance in other areas, particularly early on in those types of events. as we saw in japan, we saw where the readiness of military assets to step in to step in in the huge natural disaster and to kind of get in front of the problem and get command and control set up and to give the people on the ground the will and the help they need to get them jumpstarted to get started. in the end, they would not solve by the u.s. military or any other allies. it was solved by the people of japan but it needed to get them started. there's other areas that we can support too. we have technologies and we have no-hows that are in developed countries that we can share with developing cubs.

so in paycom, i'm able to bring together in interagencies from our u.s. government and we can transport some of that knowledge into these hadr scenarios that we do and exercise we do in other countries so. for instance, in bangladesh, over time, we have -- they have been able to develop warning systems and place where is people go during large storms that have significantly decreased the damage and cost to human life. and so we can do some of those things in our multi-lateral planning together. plus, the whole idea of hadr is, you know, many times in this large area, we have to look for places where our interests converge to be able to participate with each other. and in this case, everybody can converge on hadr. the chinese, the u.s., everyone can. so you will see exercises where we're operating with the

chinese. we're operating with the indians and other people in the area because we're going after a common cause. these things build trust and over time, i think can make us a stronger region. >> thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank you very much, senator kane. senator king. >> thank you for your thoughtful answers today. are there treaty obligations between china and north korea that we know of, a kind of mutual non-aggression or something like that? >> i understand that that there is an alliance of some mechanism there. i don't know the specifics of how it would be implemented but i believe there is that has been widely speculated that north korea is an ally of china. >> well, here's the scenario that keeps me up at night. north koreans torpedoed a ship, a south korean ship.

south koreans seem to have a high level of intolerance for this kind of activity tan they have in the past so there's a response from the south koreans, some kind of strike in there is a response of more severity in the south. >> what happens next? >> what does worry me is the guns of august phenomenon. world ward into a because of a series of alliances based upon what could be considered in significant incidents. what is next? let's pause an attack on seoul or some large population in south korea. what happens? >> i share your concerns about

the seriousness of a provocation that will lead to a list -- miscalculation or escalation that would go up and out pretty quickly. the timeline from when you go from when you see a miscalculation that went youtic to a time significant combat activity from the north is a good time line. we have the ability for the alliance. the plant and got through some of these events. we have the ability to quickly

bring the forces that would be necessary to get it under control as fast as possible. the best thing we can do is preserve the peace to get the backs of the diplomacy could work. this is where they went. >> our relationship with china has come out over and over in terms of their ability to to be a partner in restoring peace as opposed to an enemy. why are they building their military? why are they diverting more

resources? we have been attacked. we know people are plotting against this country. do they have any serious fear of people attacking their homeland? >> they have a large standing army for internal security in border security issues. decades last number of as they have become a more economic and powerful nation, that they have increased their it assists in cyber, space, maritime capabilities. a pragmaticives you look at it. we should not be surprised by that. they have natural interests that are concerning them. any state needs to be able to

ensure the security of them. you do this with navies and things that can employ. to the degree they get one, it would seem a natural progression and a power that was rising. the real key is that they need transparency. there is a need for trust between the neighbors. this military capability, what are they going to do with it? their owne to pursue interests at the expense of others in this tightly controlled part of the world? is it to be a contributor to the

security environment for the global economy and all the peace and prosperity can continue? that is contemplate. to come >> it strikes me as something of an oxymoron. i would like to associate have thish we commercial relationship with china. on the other hand they have opportunities to assist in peace around the world and are not doing so. -- put gramm put a quiet it quite well. , ak about non-state actors transnational criminal organizations, pirates, .mugglers, drugs, weapons,

it is a concern. transnational organizations will continue to proliferate. done some really magnificent work over the last decade or so to help curtail al qaeda activity globally. where you have disaffected populations and all of these things that enter into frustration of people, there is a potential of that. we do not see a significant terrorist threat. there are pockets of it that we deal with. we work carefully with our

filipino partners in the philippines and some operations we help train and assist in. in india there's always a concern about the transition of terrorists from the west into india at that we discussed and talk about here it what we are doing mostly in paycom to get ahead is we are working to ensure our information sharing , wes these networks develop are able to sense and understand with each other what they are doing and being able to interdict them before this becomes a larger problem. cold where there is a famous hot line between moscow and washington. is there a direct link between washington and beijing? >> there is.

is onessary, that there between me and beijing as well. we exercise that on occasion. this.d to get better at i do not have the same relationship i have with the koreaof defense of japan where we understand each other, we need routinely. withed to gemoving forward our relationship with china. we have many things that we have in common with each other. we need to understand those better. >> it is nice to have a relationship before the crisis. thank you. >> senator r nelson. >> good morning. inng back to sequestration,

a big aor such as yours to be ready, you have to do a lot of exercises. is there any capability of using our increasingly enhanced ability in simulation to keep your troops ready as a substitute for actual exercises? >> i think you will find that we spent an awful lot of money and time on developing simulations that help us. i see simulations that are critical. many of what we used to fly in airplanes are you done -- are done in simulators. our most high in ships do training via simulators because

the cost to fire the weapons are prohibitively expensive. even at the joint force command level we do synthetic training where we bring in synthetic exercises to make it work. should there be more of this? absolutely. the downside is it is expensive to get in. we have to weigh the cost of asking the services to buy its versus whether or not it can be realized. about goingk you back to the north korean nuclear program. recently the base said they were going to reopen their mothball reactor, weapons-grade plutonium. they had shut it down as far as

we know it in 2007. people have testified to it would take at least six months to get the reactor up and running. do you agree with this kind of assessment? let me just stop there. >> i think it is a bad decision by north korean leadership to do it. it is in direct contradiction of a u.s. security council resolution. this is certainly provocative in nature. at the time line that you discussed is what i ought to have seen roughly. it is just an approximation at this time. >> that is six months. takingnother thing will a nuclear weapon and then integrating its on a delivery

system. presumably, if they have the ability to integrate its onshore arrange delivery -- it on short range delivery systems. what about the long-range? we have heard testimony from senior officials that they have not produced the ability of mounting nuclear weapons on long-range. can you share your thoughts in this open forum/ >> as a general rule, i would say that we have not seen them demonstrate the capability yet. they have indicated to us that

they had it. seriouslyg to take it when someone indicates it. i think we have done due diligence steps. we have not seen them demonstrate that capability. tofor the american people understand our capability with this a bellicose and nature of this new young leader in north between theou state united states ground to air, sea to air capability of knocking down 1 at his threatening missiles from north korea that we have that capability?

>> i can confirm we have that capability. 22s? about the f- they were going to be sent back to the united states. was ins a plan that process until all of this bellicosity started by the young the korean leader. s in someend our f-22 sort of exercise with south korea. do you think we ought to continue on with the process of spending them out of japan back to the u.s.? rotate, we have two types of forces. time.e deployed all the

then we have a rotational forces. i use those to maintain the capacity of the theater. some of those are useful being deployed from the states. we have used packages where we rotate them in and out. it lets them go back and get the high end training they need. the decision we made recently and will not talk about why we made those. it was prudent decisions we made on the behalf to maintain stability of the force we saw just in case. what i have more concern about this not the ability to wrote them that the capability to sustain them through sequestration. it allows some time to get retrained and ready.

you have a lot of terrorist activity going in your aor. you have had some stunning successes over the years. bali bomber -- bomber.g the bali terrorism continues the route, cluding my mom by a -- mumbai. if you would classify what you're doing in terms of an attack in terms of all the that go withity

terrorism i would appreciate for this committee in a classified process. >> i will take that. and have that sense to the -- andn and make sure have that sent to the chairman. we can notify it is available for members. much for beingry here and for your stamina and responding to our questions. forgive me if i recover some ground they have already responded to. assuming that we continue to operate on heightened alert with respect to north korea, is there

any indication that sequestration has limited your ability to respond to a crisis there? not lifted my ability to date. >> that is the question i have. you have indicated that sequestration will have an impact over time. the operation ability our military. at what point are we going to get to the tipping point where it is going to have an impact on our ability to respond? how do we know that? how can you convey to members of this committee and congress when we have reached that tipping point? atwe are continually looking our readiness capabilities in .he aor in my area

i have certain priorities i maintain as we go through any kind of budget decision process. i have to be able to sense what is going on in my area of responsibility. the second thing is i need to make sure that at least in the near term right now that the forces on the korean peninsula, that they are ready to do what we call "fight the night." we're able to respond in the ability that protect the interests of the alliance in the united states and as well as soldiers on the peninsula. keeping those forces tuna is

something we are doing. -- tuned is something we are doing. those sources need to be replaced over time. are they agile? are they able to get there? this is where i think the impact of sequestration start to make the choice is very difficult for the services. the services to have some leeway in where they make their decisions, but not a lot, particularly in the near term. as to go further into the planning cycle, he might be able to start looking at different ways of doing it. in the midterm, it will have an impact on us. i miss the party said there is a mechanism to notify congress when you get to that point. >> i did not mean to skip over that peri.

we keep a very formated system that is monitored by the joint force. the chairman takes for me my assessment of the risk we are assuming and the rest get supported through the secretary of defense and through the dialogue at that level, are levels are well reflected. there is no secret. we will not hide readiness that we do not have. we are very up front about it. it is like a map equation. what he put in is what you get out. when we cannot meet those readiness requirements, that becomes the risk. that is risk i have to manage as a combatant commanders. when my risks get too high, where they go from risks to

being potentially worse, then my responsibility is to tell my leadership and you that the risks are too high. >> i hope you feel like you have a direct line into me. i hope that we will have addressed sequestration before we get there. it is critical to our national security. let me follow up on the line of questioning that senator mccain was going after relative to the potential for what is happening in north korea to set off and nuclear arms race across asia. india tends toat develop nuclear capable ballistic submarines, that pakistan has expressed an interest in that. the risk,combat

whether it is the technology that north korea now has and we know has already shared with iser non-state actors that dangerous. had we keep that from proliferating. can you also talk the extent to which the effort to address arms control has an impact on the thinking of actors about this question? first, let me give you my position. i support a nuclear triad. as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, i support that we have a safe and reliable

nuclear deterrent. the father in me says i would like to see a world that did not have any weapons. will we ever realize that? i do not know. predict it will happen anytime soon. to the question of proliferation among state actors that are building a nuclear deterrent, that is not something that has to be dealt with above my level. when you talk about north. that is potentially going to proliferate nuclear technology to irresponsible actors, particularly to transnational threats, this becomes a very real concern for me. it gets to the issue of how to

monitor -- monitor it? how did they enforce the resolutions so it all fits together. my part of that is on the monitoring and interdiction side of it. doesuestion then of how the nuclear proliferation or the discussion of nuclear weapons in extendeder, we have an deterrence policy for our allies. it works. there is occasionally discussions about what our a desire by create air partner nations to want to proliferate their own nuclear systems? it will not be beneficial. it is unnecessary.

i am confident that the extended deterrence policies are substantial enough to do what is necessary. it is not just about nuclear- weapons. and how these are applied and reviewed. this makes it important for our forward presence, build that confidence and the alliances we had over the years. in any scenario you want to handle a contingency through conventional means. you just do not want to go the other direction. as equally as much discussion as the others. >> thank you. >> i have one additional question and then i will call on others to see if they have an additional question no. 2.

i think you have read a question or two. i think you have heard from this committee that china could have chosen to put an end to the provocative blistering kind of comments that coming from north korea. we all have strong feelings that time it creates all kinds of problems for us -- that china creates all kinds of problems for us. i mention some of those in my opening statement. in this interest, our interests are the same. isis clear to me that china indicating some willingness down to take some action to try

and prevent the kind of spinning out of control that can lead to serious confrontation on the korean peninsula. i ask you whether we are ready andespond appropriately proportional nation north korea take some action against the actions. you indicated that we are ready. you indicated there is a hot line between you and your counterpart in china. that you at least are able to communicate with them should you choose. i guess my question and my request would be the following. --t the mill to milk context mill context is sometimes the best way to show our intentions

with china. their military has an influence in their government. would you explore the possibility after talking to the secretary of defense and the secretary of state, which to explore the possibility as to --ether it might be useful which to explore the possibility of whether it might be useful to contact the defense establishment in china and the greato them yo desirability of china weighing for theserth korea incidents that grow in seriousness and make it clear to the chinese that we want them to the north an end to

korean provocations and that we and our south korean allies are preparing to respond in an appropriate way should north korea take any action against the south into against us. would you explore the possibility of that, whether you should make that connection with your counterpart in china? could you explore that. >> absolutely, senator. i'll explore it. we'll look at it in the context of the -- i think there are -- obviously i advocated for this with my counterparts in china, there is benefit to establishing those types of links. in this scenario because of where we are it will have to be tied in with the other

communications that are happening through other forms of our government, which i'm sure there are those that are going on with their chinese ounterparts as well. >> it could add a very important element of this military to military communication occurred with your chinese counterpart. >> yes, sir. >> so that's something you could take on? >> i'll explore, yes, sir. >> that's what i mean. thank you. ok. any other questions? senator shaheen? i don't need to call -- i'll see if anyone raises their hands at this point. senator shaheen. >> i had one follow-up to the question about should we need to respond to north korea, what suggestina's -- can you what you think china's reaction

might be should the united states respond to an act of aggression by north korea? >> again, i'll be making hypotheticals, but i would again go back to what are their enduring interests there. one is their own border security. i think they would be concerned about refugee flow, uncontrolled refugee flow. there is 25 million people there that are -- will be affected by something like that. and how would that be controlled. i think they will have a similar concern as we have about weapons of mass destruction not only -- particularly fissile material, but all other weapons of mass destruction that we know he has the capability and capacity to have in the country. and how that would be managed at the time. we are contemplating all that and have -- thinking through how that would be done with our allies in the south as well. i think there would -- how would

they respond beyond that? and how they would do it i can't speculate on that. i think they would -- again, they would move to secure their national interests just like we will. >> thank you. >> thank you. there's no other questions, then, we thank you very much, admiral. as always you have been very direct and very helpful. greatly appreciate your presence here this morning. all the great work that you and those who work with you are doing in pay come. thanks again. we'll stand adjourned. apparently the vote in the senate has begun. we all need to get over there. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013]

>> u.s. forces commander general james thurmond had been scheduled to testify at the hearing but he canceled his trip because of tensions in the region. you may have heard during the hearing that the u.s. canceled planned missile tests in the area. the "christian science monitor" saying, senior u.s. military officials called for the move by general james thurmond, a quote, prudent measure, made in consultation with south korea. senator levin there gaveling out the hearing, wrapping up the hearing. indicating there is a vote under way in the u.s. senate. there is. first up, the house they return from their two week spring recess today gaveling in at 2:00 for legislative work. several measures under consideration this afternoon, including one dealing with hydropower development in utah, and another on the acquisition of historical battlefield sites. we'll have live coverage here on c-span, 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate, meanwhile, the vote under way in the cincinnati on the nomination of patty schwartz to be a judge on the u.s. third

circuit court of appeals. following their party lunches, the senate -- possible the senate may begin consideration of legislation requiring background checks for all gun sales. republican leader mitch mcconnell yesterday joined 13 other republican senators who threatened to block the bill from coming to the floor. as always, watch the house here on c-span and the senate on c-span2. we'll get more from the administration on gun control coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern. vice president biden and attorney general eric holder are holding a press conference in d.c. they'll urge congress to take up the senate bill and they'll also be joined by law enforcement officials at that briefing this afternoon. that's at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. more live coverage from capitol hill this afternoon here on c-span. president obama's pick to be his next budget director appears before the senate government affairs committee. during her confirmation hearing. former deputy budget director during the clinton

administration, ms. burwell is currently serving as the president of the wal-mart foundation. that hearing at 2:30 on c-span. over on c-span3 at 3:00 eastern, the i.r.s. acting commissioner testifies before house subcommittee on his agency's 2014 budget. as the head of the agency, steven miller manages about 90,000 employees and a budget of $12 billion. that hearing is at 3:00 p.m. eastern. back to the issue of defense, deputy defense secretary ashton carter, who recently returned from a trip to asia, yesterday outlined steps the u.s. is taking to advance security and prosperity in the region. he also provided an assessment of the security situation in the korean peninsula. hosted by the center for strategic and international studies in washington. it's an hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for coming. i'm surprised to see so many

he'll people wanting to hear about the future of industrial financing in the defense department. this is a complete -- had no idea it was such a popular topic. seriously, thank you for coming. i'm the president here at csis. and a lifelong admirer of ash carter. he was the first guy who refused to hire me. this goes back quite a few years ago. he was at p a&e at the time. he decided i wasn't up for the job. it led to a lifelong friendship. our paths have intertwined through the years. so grateful now that he's willing to stay on and be the continuous deputy secretary. doing a fabulous job. every conversation in washington these days always, in our area, always has kind of a central theme. is the pivot real? and are -- is it durable? that's just the constant refrain. i hear it almost all meetings.

well, a couple of days to go, secretary carter was in jakarta and gave a very, very important speech on this very subject. and since very few people in jakarta are here today, we thought it would be safe for him to give the same speech. i think it's probably going to be slightly adapted to washington audience. seriously, this is the topic of the sway day, and the secretary is -- he was just chartered by secretary hagel to undertake this strategic management review. so all of these issues are very timely, and i think that's reflected by so much interest here in this room. so let me -- without delay any further, you are hear for the secretary. let me ask you to join and welcome with your applause secretary ashton carter. [applause] >> thank you, john, for giving me an opportunity to be here. this wonderful institution that you run so ably. i have learned so much from john

throughout my career. i had forgotten that -- something tells me there is something apock fra phil about that but i'll wrack my brains on that. i have had a great admiration for john for many years. one that's only deepened in my rrent role where i can fully appreciate what john accomplished. john, you made it look easy. and i appreciate you're inviting me to be here. also want to thank rick inderfurth. who made this event possible and from whom i have learned so much about this region for so long. thank you, rick. as john mentioned i did recently return from a trip to asia that took me to japan, south korea, the philippines, and indonesia where i attended the jakarta international defense dialogue. the purpose of my trip was to

visit first and foremost much course with our forces deployed there who are doing superbly. and also to make sure that our forces, allies, our partners in the region understand that we are serious about our defense commitments there. that we are going to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. this was my secretary trip to asia since president obama announced a new strategic concept for the united states. and it followed recent visits to the region by president obama, secretary clinton, secretary panetta, and national security advisor doneland. all of whom are emphasizing the very same thing. the central importance of the asia pacific to the united states and our commitment to making sure that the region remains safe, secure, and prosperous. later this week secretary kerry will be visiting seoul, tokyo, and beijing for the first time

as secretary of state. and later this spring secretary hagel, who as a senator led the first u.s. congressional delegation to the shankry la dialogue, will attend the dialogue for the first time as secretary of defense. our forces out there are also superbly commanded by sam locklear and j.d. thurmond. i say all this because i think it's important to point out how much time, energy, and intellectual capital, as well as resources we are investing in our rebalance to the asia pacific. across the breadth of our government. as the president has said, our investment in the region will continue to grow in the years to come. now, in this connection our rebalanced asia is mostly a political and economic concept. not a military one. but given my role as deputy secretary of defense, i'm naturally going to concentrate on its security aspects today.

first i'd like to briefly address the evolving security situation on the korean peninsula. the north koreans have been determined of late to create a crisis atmosphere. but just because they have a habit of indulging in extreme rhetoric doesn't mean we don't take the situation seriously. as we have demonstrated through our actions in the past few weeks, the united states is committed to maintaining peace and security on the korean peninsula and throughout the asia pacific region. we are vigilantly moderating the situation, in close contact with our south korean civilian and military counterparts, as well as with the governments of japan, china, and russia. our position has been and remains that north korea should cease its provocative threats immediately. north korea's nuclear activities are in clear violation of u.n.

security council resolutions and its international commitments, and we believe that north korea should live up to these commitments and refrain from its provocative behavior. to this end we are working with our friends and allies around the world to employ an integrated response to these unacceptable provocations. which include united nations security council resolutions with unprecedentedly strong sanctions. and additional unilateral sanctions of great effect. the result of which will be to leave north korea further isolated from the international community. in the security atmosphere the united states remains steadfast in its defense commitments to the republic of korea. together we are taking important steps to advance the alliance's military capabilities and enhance homeland and alliance security. in particular, we will continue to provide the extended deterrence offered by the u.s.

nuclear umbrella, and will ensure that all of our capabilities remain available to the alliance. as secretary hagel announced, we are also taking actions to strengthen our missile defenses in order to keep ahead of north korea ballistic missile development. these include the deployment of 14 additional ground-based interceptors in alaska, and the plan deployment of a secretary tip d-e-2 radar to japan which will provide improved early warning tracking of any missile launched from north korea towards the united states or japan. in recent weeks we have also moved the guided missile destroyers, u.s.s. john s. mccain, and decatur to locations in the western pacific where they are poised to respond to any missile threats to our allies or our territory. last thursday we announced that we will be deploying a termal

high altitude area defense system, lipids system to guam in the coming weeks as a precautionary move to strengthen our regional defense posture against the north korean missile threat. in addition to these measures, we recently signed a new joint counter provocation plan with the republic of korea to enhance our coordination and response if the event of a north korean provocation and mitigate the risk of miscalculation. and we are participating in annual military exercises with south korea, including fold eagle and key resolve to make sure we are operationally ready to meet the security challenges that confront us in the region. as the president has made clear, there is a path opened to north korea to peace and economic opportunity. but to get on that path north korea must abandon its pursuit

of nuclear weapons and abide by its international commitments. with that, let me return to the broader theme of today's discussion, which is how we are implementing our defense rebalance across the asia pacific region. i'd like to begin to provide some strategic context. we in the united states are currently embarked upon a great strategic transition. after a decade of necessary and very intense preoccupation on two wars of a particular kind, in iraq and afghanistan, one that is finished, and one that will wind down to an enduring presence over the next two years, we are turning a strategic corner and focusing our attention on the challenges and opportunities that will define our future. we know that many of these -- what many of these challenges

are, continued turmoil in the middle east, enduring threats like weapons of mass destruction, and a range of new threats in new domains like cyber. we also see great opportunities. the most consequential of which is to shift the great weight of the department of defense, both intellectual and physical, to the asia pacific region to reinforce our long-standing commitments there. the logic of our rebalance is simple. the asia pacific theater has enjoyed peace and stability for over 60 years. this has been true despite the fact that there is no formal overarching security structure, no nato, to make sure that historical wounds are healed. during that time first japan rose and prospered, then south korea rose and prospered, and

then many nations in southeast asia rose and prospered. and now china and india rise and prosper. all this has been welcomed by the united states. but none of this was a foregone conclusion when you consider where the asia pacific region was at the end of world war ii. while the asian political and economic miracle was realized first and foremost by the hard work and talent of the asian people, it was enabled by the enduring principles that the u.s. has stood for in the region. which we believe are essential to peace, prosperity, and security. these include a commitment to free and open commerce, a just international order that emphasizes rights and responsibilities of nations. and if i dillity to the rule -- if i dill it to the rule of law,

open access by all to the shared domains of sea, air, space, and now cyberspace. and the principle principle of resolving conflict without the use of force. it was also neighborhood -- enabled, this is the theme of my remarks today, by the pivotal role of u.s. military power and presence in the region. we believe that our strong security presence in the asia pacific has provided a critical foundation for these principles to take root. and for this prosperity to occur. and we intend to continue to provide this foundation for decades to come. our partners in the region welcome our leadership and our row bst engagement -- robust engagement, and we are committed to answering their call. it's good for us and for everyone in the region. and it includes everyone in the region.

it's not aimed at anyone. no individual country or group f countries. with this as background, i'd like to explain the various features of our defense rebalance in the asia pacific region. it's reflected in first force structure divisions we have made and are making, that is what we keep, what we retire. second, presence and posture. that is where we put things and what we do with them. most visible part of the rebalance. next, investments. not just in technology and new weapons systems, but human capital as well. then innovations in our operational plans and tactics. and finally, and perhaps most importantly, the work we are doing to strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the region.

let me begin by describing how we are shifting our force structure to the asia pacific region, and i'll start with the navy. as we draw down from afghanistan, the navy will be releasing naval surface combatants and eventually carriers, as well as naval intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, i.s.r., and their associated processing capabilities. already e-p-3 signals have been moved from centcom to paycome. the navy will also be refusing fire scout unmanned aerial vehicles from afghanistan. several electronic surveillance aircraft are available. in addition, navy p-3's, the type of maritime patrol aircraft, which have conducted missions in the middle east for the past decade will return to paycom. the navy is also adding a forward deployed naval force s.s.m. to guam in this fiscal year 2015.

the navy shifting overall its posture to the asia pacific region in such a manner as secretary panetta announced last year resulting in 60% of our naval assets being assigned to the asia pacific region by 2020. a substantial and historic shift. the naval's accomplishing this in three main ways. first, the navy will be permanently basing four destroyers to spain to provide ballistic missile defense to our european allies. previously this was performed by 10 destroyers that row tait interested the u.s. to the med strain. the six destroyers now released will be able to shift their deployments to the-asia pacific region. while the four ships in spain will provide the same amount of missile defense coverage for our

european allies. second, destroyers and amphibious ships that have conducted security cooperation and humanitarian assistance missions in africa, south korea, and europe will be replaced by new high joint high school vessels. freeing destroyers and am fibous ships to the asia pacific region. third, the navy will generate more forward presence by fielding ships such as the joint i.c. vessel, as well as new mobile landing platforms and float forward staging bases that use rotating military or civilian crews. the air force, meanwhile, capitalizing on its inherent speed, range, and flexibility in the region, will also shift capacity from afghanistan to the asia pacific. including i.s.r. assets like the and the er, the u-2,

global hawk. in addition, the air force will be able to allocate space, cyber, tactical aircraft, and bomber forces to the asia pacific region will little new investment as 60% of its overseas base forces are already stationed there. including 60% of combat coded f-22's. our ability to strengthon the ongoing continuous bomber presence missions in the regions will also benefit from reduced presence in afghanistan. as operations in afghanistan end, for example, more b-1's will become available. augmenting the b-52's already on continuous rotational presence in the asia pacific region. the capability to provide forward strategic presence with roundtrip missions by the stealthy b-2, will remain a valuable option. the army and marine corps also

have an important role to play in our rebalance. both services are making the most titanic transitions coming out of iraq and afghanistan because they have been so deeply involved in both conflicts. the army has about 91,000 soldiers and civilians assigned to the asia pacific. and it maintains a forward presence of eight active component combat teams, 12 batteries of patriots, and numerous theater enabling units. the army is ensuring that after a decade of using paycom assets in the sent come area, the paycom commander regains commanding control of the other 60,000 soldiers assigned to the broader asia pacific region. as part of this aligned rotational concept, army units assigned to paycom will focus ring their training cycle on specific paycom profiles such as

building partnership capacities. at this should also add during these months of sequestration and beyond, the army is preferentially protecting the readiness and modernization of the more than 19,000 soldiers we have in south korea. so that they are able to decisively respond to any north korean provocation. the marines also have an important role to play in the pacific. roughly 18,000 marines are forward deployed in the region. split between where a fighter squadron is based, okinawa, the third marine expeditionary force, and darwin, new rifle company. the marines have also put an additional two infantry battalions for a total of three on the ground in okinawa and will put another there this fall. these are rotational battalions that will move in and out of the western pacific every six months. all of this will be accompanied

by an ea-6 prowler squadron this fall, along with more heavy lift and attack helicopters on okinawa. i should also mention there are 5,000 marines on oahu in hawaii. so in reality the asia pacific region will soon see more of our army, marine corps, and special operations forces now that they are coming home to the pacific from iraq and afghanistan. in addition to shifting our own force structure, we are modernizing, enhancing our forward presence across the region, in cooperation with our allies and partners. let me start with northeast asia. i have already mentioned the work we are doing with south korea. in japan we have added aviation capability, with the mv-22 osprey deployment. we have upgraded our missile

defense posture. and we are working to revise the defense guidelines with japan to meet the challenges of the 21st century. and as announced by secretary hagel last week, the united states and japan have achieved an important milestone in our effort to realign our marine corps presence in okinawa. moving forward with this initiative sends a clear signal that our posture in northeast asia will be operationally resilient and politically sustainable for the foreseeable future. in addition to strengthening our presence in northeast asia, we are enhancing our presence in southeast asia and the indian ocean region as well. in this regard, it's important to underscore that we are not only rebalancing two -- to the asia pacific, but also within the asia pacific. in recognition of the growing importance of southeast asia and south asia to the region as a whole.

emphasizing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, maritime domain awareness, capacity building, and multilateral exercises. in australia, for example, our first company marines rotated through darwin last year. a key first step towards using this presence to engage in bilateral and multilateral exercises with partners in the region. in the philippines we are working with our full and equal partner to enhance the capacity of the philippines armed forces. increase our rotational presence and capitalize on other opportunities for cooperation. n singapore the first of our combat ships will be ooh rifing later this month, providing a key capability to work bilaterally and multilaterally with our fartherers in in the region. these -- partners in the region. these are a few examples of how

we are expanding our presence in that part of the region. next we are giving priority in our investments in our budget to the development of platforms and capabilities that have direct applicability to the asia pacific region. all the while preserving and integrating the counter insurgency and special operations capabilities that we have worked so hard to develop over the last decade in iraq and afghanistan. these new investments include the virginia class nuclear powered submarine, including the submarine itself, and the new payload module for kruse missiles, as well as -- cruise missiles, wells the surveillance aircraft, and anti-submarine helicopter. together these investments will help the navy sustain its undersea dominance. the navy's also fielding the broad area of maritime surveillance aboard the global hawk u.a.v. to expand the range

and capacity for i.s.r. in the region. additionally, electronic aircraft and next generation jammer with extensive frequency range have increased agility. these provide extensive electronic warfare capability. in the air force while we have made some deductions in squadrons worldwide, by removing some of the older or single purpose aircraft to make way for newer aircraft, we have made no changes in our tactical air posture for the asia pacific region. in addition, we have continued to invest in the fifth generation joint strike fighter, new stealth bomber, kc-46 tanker replacement, and a host of i.s.r. platforms. the army, for its part, continues to invest in ballistic missiles defense capabilities that are being deployed and improved. and at the d.o.d. wide level, we

are also protecting our investments in future focused capabilities that are so important to this region. such as cyber, certain science and technology investments, and space. in addition to investment in technical capabilities, we are also investing in our people. in language and culture skills, regional and strategic affairs to ensure that we cultivate the intellectual capital that we will be required to make good on our rebalance. with regard to our military installations, we are making critical investments in training ranges and infrastructure, including in guam, which we are developing as a strategic hub, as well as in marianas, spy pan, and tinnian. we are focused on delivering capacity, managing resources, and following through on our investments. secretary gates and secretary

panetta both held regular video tell conferences on iraq and afghanistan. some of you remember them. where the commanders and all the key players in the pentagon would work on those very urgent problems associated with both those theaters. given the priority of our rebalance, secretary panetta decided to use this same model for pay comp. a model that secretary hagel has now adopted as well to provide continuous and focused attention on the region. in fact, i just came from such a meeting. and to support the secretary i have been convening a series of working sessions of the deputy's management action group which is the principal management forum in the department, that are specifically focused on our rebalanced asia pacific. so we are watching every dollar, every ship, and every aircraft to implement the rebalance successfully. we also recognize that as the

world is changing quickly our operational plans need to change and we are changing them accordingly. we are there for taking into account new capability and operational concepts, advanced capabilities of potential adversaries and global threat assessments. finally, partnerships. these many elements of our u.s. rebalance, the u.s. ones that i have talked about, are really only part of the rebalance. we also seek, as we have for decades, to build partnerships in the region that leverage the unique strengths of our various partners and allies to confront critical challenges and realize emerging opportunities. i have already mentioned the work we are doing with allies japan, korea, australia, and the philippines. but we are building partnerships with many others also.

for example, last november we worked with our treaty ally thailand to update the u.s.-thailand joint vision statement for the first time in 50 years. with new delapd, the the speaker pro tempore:ing of the washington declaration and associated policy changes have opened up new avenues for defense cooperation in areas such as maritime security, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and peacekeeping support. in burma, we have resumed limited military to military relations and are working to ensure the burmese military supports burma's ongoing and dynamic reforms. with the vietnamese, we are expanding our cooperation as set forth in a new memorandum of understanding, maritime security, searching and rescue, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. in malaysia and indonesia, we

are similarly working to build partner capacity and conduct maritime security and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. with china we have invited the chinese to participate in the recommend pack exercise which we host, and we are delighted that they have accepted. we seek to strengthen and grow our military to military relationship with china. commensurate with our growing political and economic relationship. building and sustaining a positive and constructive relationship with china is essential to the success of our rebalancing strategy. finally, india, a key part of our rebalance, and more broadly an emerging power that we believe will help determine the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century with others. our security interests with india converge on maritime

security and broader regional issues, including india's look east policy. we are also working to deepen our defense cooperation, moving beyond purely defense trade, towards technology sharing and co-production. multilaterally we recognize the importance of strengthening regional institutions like ozion that play an indespencible role in maintaining regional stability and resolving disputes through diffle macy. in this regard we have made attendance at min tearial meetings a pry court for our secretaries. especially the defense ministers meeting. we strongly support the unity and we applaud the efforts of member nations to have an abiding code of conduct that would create a rules based framework for regulating conduct of parties in the south china sea and would welcome china's

active participation in negotiations. our position is clear and consistent, we call for -- aint and for diplomaic gim matic resolutions, we oppose coercion and use of force. we don't take sides when it comes to competing territorial and historical claims. but we do take the side of peaceful resolution of disputes in a mearn consist tent with international law. we are also deeply engaged in exercises planned this year including a humanitarian and disaster relief exercise that will be hosted by brunei. a counterterrorism exercise that we are co-sponsoring with indonesia. and a maritime security exercise co-chaired by malaysia and australia. as we work to build these partnerships in asia, we will

complement them with critical new investments in our alliance and partnerships in europe. i mentioned the forward basing of iege grouse on the road to spavenlt we have established an aviation detachment in poland to more closely train with our ally's air forces, and we will place missile defense systems in romania in 2015 and poland in 2018. we'll redefine our presence in the nato response force with a steady rotation of u.s. army forces to europe to maintain our transatlantic military links and cement tremendous interop prohibit gains we have made with allies and partners this that part of the world over the last decade of operations together. as we rebalance our transatlantic bonds actually become even more important as we face common challenges outside of europe. so, there is much that goes in to the rebalance.

let me close by noting that there are those who have concern about and perhaps some who have hope for a theory that our rebalance will not be lasting or that it's not sustainable. i'm a physicist and therefore i put facts against theory. and let me tell you why this theory doesn't fit the facts. the rebalance will continue, in fact gain momentum for two reasons. first, u.s. interests in the region are enduring. and so also will be our political and economic presence there. this presence is accompanied by values of democracy, freedom, human rights, civilian control of the military, and respect for the sovereignty of nations that america has long stood for and

that human beings welcome and relate to. so our interest in staying a pivotal force in the region will, we believe, be reciprocated. second, we have the resources to accomplish the rebalance. some who wish to ge the -- question the rebalance to the asia pacific theater point to the current seemingly endless debate in washington about the u.s. budget. and wonder whether all this can be accomplished. i'm interested to hear this because i'm more accustomed to listening to people question why the u.s. spends more on defense than the next 16 largest militaries in the world combined. this statistic is true. in fact, and won't change much. in coming years. it's also worth noting that most of the rest of the money that the world spends on defense is spent by countries that are

allies and friends of the united states. these levels of defense spending are a reflection of the amount of responsibility that the u.s. and its friends and allies share for providing peace and security. you may also be wondering whether the see quester will change these -- see questions letter change these facts in a significant way. it won't. here's why. sequester was never intended to be implemented and is very disruptive because it gives us very little managerial flexibility in where we take the budget adjustments that we have to take this year. but wherever we have flexibility, we are favoring and protecting the rebalance. we continue to review and revise our plans for executing the fiscal year 2013 budget in the face of sequester. and in the face also of the increased cost of the afghanistan campaign and the fact that we only recently got

an appropriation. back in january i gave direction about what is exempt from or protected from sequestration. and the services and components are applying that guidance. it explicitly directs the protection wherever possible of activities related to the rebalance this year. the main point is that the arbitrary cuts that sequester imposes under the budget control act are temporary, lasting through october of this year. in other words, sequester is an artificial and self-inflicted political problem not a structuring one. hopefully the turmoil and gridlock will end and the u.s. can get back to what you might call normal budget process. when it does, congress and the president will decide what d.o.d.'s budget will be in the years beyond fiscal year 2013.

the president has been clear about holding defense spending steady in the long run or reducing by a few percentage points, including especially by improving efficiency in defense spending. if the drastic cuts that began the sequester this year were extended in their levels for a decade, u.s. defense spending would be cut somewhere around 10 percentage points. this is the range under debate today. none of these political scenarios changes the math i described earlier. the u.s. defense rebalance to the asia pacific is not in jeopardy. that said, there is obviously considerable uncertainty about where an overall budget agreement, which is needed to end the current turmoil, will lead. and what is clear to us in d.o.d. is that we need to think and act ahead of this

uncertainty and not in reaction to it. moreover, it's not just the budget but strategic necessity that requires us to examine and re-examine our defense in a fundamental way. strategicically, as i said, we are turning a corner after 10 years of war. we need to master the security challenges that will define our future. and as you know, i believe deeply we need to improve the way we spend the taxpayers' defense dollar. always striving for what i have called, better buying power, since i was under secretary -- undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistic. for all these reasons secretary hagel asked me to lead a strategic choices and management review, working with chairman democracy and all the leadership of the department to examine the choices that underlie our defense strategy, posture, and

investments, including all past assumptions. the review will define the major strategic choices and i.n.s. tugal challenges affecting ---institutional challenges affecting them that must come under a wide range of future circumstance that is could result from a comprehensive deficit reduction deal or the persistence of the cuts that began with this year's sequester. the results of this review will frame the secretary's guidance for the fiscal year 2015 budget and will ultimately be the foundation for the quadrennial defense review due to congress in february of 2014. as secretary hagel said last week at the national defense university, the goal of the review is to ensure that we can better execute the strategic guidance set out by the president, including our rebalance to the asia pacific.

finally, it's important to stress that the strength of our rebalance is not measured only by comparing defense budget levels. the end of the war in iraq and the reduction in afghanistan allow us to shift the great weight of effort from these wars to our stabilizing presence in the asia pacific region. next this weight has accumulated over decades of u.s. defense spending. so you have to consider a nation's defense investments over time. it takes decades to build a military capability of the kind the u.s. has. probably most importantly another feature of the u.s. military today is that its operational experience is unrivaled, including such attributes as the ability to work constructively with partners, to fuse intelligence and operations, to operate

jointly among the services, to support forces with logistics all of these skills honed in iraq and afghanistan. enduring se reasons values and increasing military power, the united states can and will succeed in rebalancing to the asia pacific in the years to come. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very, very much for those remarks. let me also welcome you as john henry did to csis. it's great to have you here. you can seat turnout, a great audience. a few members of the press in the back.

i don't know if you can see them, but this is on the record. did you know that? >> yes, i did. >> good. i just want to make sure. did you also know that we are doing live tweeting? did you know this? do you tweet? >> i don't. but my wife does. >> usually a moderator is asked to give a quick summary. i don't tweet, either. but if i were tweeting, if i were tweeting, i would say the lead tweet of what we just heard is the tweet would be, u.s. rebalance to asia lasting and sustainable and not in jeopardy. you can use these, by the way, if you want to use them. now, two other tweets i would give, then we are going to go to "q&a." secretary tweet would be, rebalance primarily a political and economic one or primarily a political and economic concept not a military one, but lots of detail on the latter. that would be a tweet. finally, deputy secretary to asia pacific rebalance not aimed

at anyone. an important message, some don't buy into that yet, but that's what is the policy. so, with those attempts at a tweet summary, i would like -- maybe we should both start doing this. i would like to turn to the audience. we have about 10 minutes. regrettably we don't have more time right now. but about 10 minutes. i ask you to wait for the microfofpblete i ask you to identify yourself and affiliation, and refrain -- we are back into baseball season. they just started. i'll use a baseball expression. i would like you to refrain from any long wind-up before you deliver the question. just go straight to the question. only one question. with that be prepared. we have people that will come to the mikes. i would like to do something that they say the prerogative of the chair, since i am the csis and u.s. india and policy

studies, it gives me the chance to ask about where india relates to the rebalance. i heard your comments at the end about the partnerships in gentleman carthy. you also refer to india being a key part of a rebalance. secretary panetta called india a linchpin in that strategic. -- strategy. these are all good ways to connect the rebalance in india, but i'd like to ask you just very quickly, operationally, what does this mean? what are the practical steps you would like to see in the u.s.-india relationship to make this work? >> very good question. and the thing i think i point to that's very much on my mind is he -- i'm sorry. the thing i to, much you could point to in the u.s.-india security relationship, and you're absolutely right, rick,

no one knows this more than you, india is, i think, destined, to be close partner of the united states. we just share so much in the way of values and aspirations and our people just seem to mix it up so easily and so well. you see that every day. that has nothing to do with defense or military, but i think we'll be reflected there. -- will be reflected there. one area of particular importance where i think we can ake progress quickly is in building the indian military capabilities. they don't want to do it, as i mentioned in the speech, just by buying things. india wants to do it with close technology cooperation and co-production. we have some examples of that. . ccessful projects that

secretary panetta when he was in india a year ago discussed this with the national security advisor there and came back and in a way that john would easily appreciate, ask the department of secretary of defense take it from there. i have my instructions in that regard and i think co-production and technology development are the watch words there where i see potential there. that will not only build the india power and capability of the indian military, but bring us closer together. >> a question right here in about half way back. again your name and affiliation, please. >> paul from reuters news agency. when you say it's not aimed at anybody, i get the sense it's not -- china doesn't always buy that. to add to that some chinese commentators in the state media and officials telling us reuters in china they think that even u.s. deployments during this north korea crisis in response

to that are also sort of things that might be aimed at china. my question is, how do you address those concerns when you go do mil-mil talks with china and what should they know? >> i think with respect -- obviously the things that we are doing in response to north korean provocations are just that, they are in response to north korean provocations, i do think that china could play and i wish they would play a larger role in influencing the north koreans to stop these provocations. china has more influence than any other country. over north korea. nd north korea's behavior is causing not just the united tates but others in the region to take actions which, if the chinese find them -- find of

things they don't like to see, there is an easy way to address that, which is to talk to the north koreans about stopping these provocations. more broadly, the rebalance as i indicated earlier is the perpetuation of the pivotal american military role in the asia pacific region, which has had the effect as i said in the speech of providing the peace and stability that has allowed e countries of asia, first japan, than r.o.k., southeast asia, now china and india, to develop politically and economically in a climate that has been free from conflict. that's a good thing. and that's a bit -- been a been fit to china in my judgment as well. i think that's the best proof that the u.s. military presence

and u.s. rebalance is not aimed at anyone. it has allowed all of that political and economic development take place. we welcome that. we have a very strong political and economic relationship with china. that's the main thing. and it grows every day. and our military to military relationship with china is also important and grows every day. rem-pac in the speech. >> question here in the front row. gentleman right here. >> thank you. press is also on the front row. bloomberg news. dr. carter, you are one of the few u.s. officials who have traveled to north korea. you were there with the former defense secretary, dr. perry, you have in the past criticized the previous bush administration for not doing much to stop the north koreans from getting nuclear capability. is all the u.s. doing is the best the united states can do? are there more that the u.s.

should and must do? secondly, are you seeing any change in the rhetoric from north korea over the last couple weeks that gives you hope that things are actually cooling off and slowing down? >> there's a lot that is going on to impress upon the north koreans that their provocations are counterproductive. they are not all u.s. actions. i mentioned the u.n. security council-led sanctions which are unprecedented. i mentioned the actions and statements of others around the world. and what we are doing, as i indicated, i gave you several examples, a great deal defensively to protect ourselves and to protect our allies and partners in the region. so all of this just further isolates north korea. and all of this just galvanizes opposition to north korea and

results in the kind of pressure that i think you see reflected in those security council resolutions. >> in the front, behind the podium. >> thanks, you mentioned partnership capacity, which is probably more important now than ever. but we are still living with an outdated export control system. in asia we never defined riments the way we have in nato. what kind of structural or policy fixes do you think are necessary for that part of the rebalance to work? >> great question. you named two right there in your question. one is export controls reform, those of you who know me as dersecretary know that i'm a mad dog on that subject. secretary gatas